Salemutti Mahendra, v. The Collector [Cs]
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3405 OF 2012 DATED:23-6-2015 Between:
Salemutti Mahendra and another ... Petitioners And The Collector (CS) Prakasham District Ongole and another ... Respondents ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. V. Sudhakar Reddy COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP)
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Proceedings No.Rc.CS1/6A/243/2011, dt.10.01.2012, of respondent No.1 whereby he has ordered confiscation of seized stocks of 6.75 quintals of rice and 9 quintals of broken rice and imposition of penalty of Rs.2,12,500/- on petitioner No.2.
I have heard Mr. V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP).
Petitioner No.1 has hired Tata Ace Auto bearing No. AP07 TA (for short, 'the vehicle') belonging to petitioner No.2 for transportation of rice and broken rice referred to above. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 sells onions in the villages by transporting them through the vehicle in exchange of rice. He has submitted that on 18.11.2011 the said vehicle was seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Santhamagaluru, along with 20 bags of broken rice and 15 bags of rice, and the same was informed to the Food Inspector, Addanki. Thereupon, the Food Inspector has filed his report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), on 21.11.2011. Based on the said report, respondent No.1 has issued notice to the petitioners. Petitioner No.
2, who is the owner of the vehicle, has participated in the proceedings which culminated in passing of the impugned order whereunder respondent No.1 has ordered confiscation of the seized stock or its value in favour of the Government. He has also imposed penalty of Rs.2,12,500/- on petitioner No.2 for his involvement in diversion of the rice which was allegedly meant for public distribution system. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
Though this writ petition is pending for the last more than three years, no counter affidavit is filed.
This Court, by order dt.10.2.2012, directed release of the seized truck of petitioner No.2 on furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. This Court has also directed release of the broken rice only.
The only ground on which the petitioners have filed this writ petition is that the very seizure of the rice by respondent No.2 - Food Inspector is without jurisdiction and consequently initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act based on the seizure report dt.21.11.2011 sent by respondent No.2 is equally without jurisdiction. A perusal of the panchanama shows that initially the SubInspector of Police has intercepted the truck and kept the same at the Police Station and on information sent by him respondent No.2 has gone to the Police Station along with panchas and seized the rice and broken rice along with the vehicle and took them into custody. Both the show cause notice and the impugned order categorically show that it is respondent No.2 who has seized the stock and the vehicle and sent the report.
Under Clause 16 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, any Officer of the Revenue or Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of Revenue Inspector/Checking Inspector/Enquiry Inspector (Civil Supplies), Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies/Grain Purchasing Assistant/Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue) or any Gazetted Officer of Vigilance and Enforcement Department or any Officer authorized in the behalf by the State Government not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police or a team of not less than three members of the Mandal/Village (Gram Panchayat) level Food Advisory Committee, are entitled to seize the commodities. An Officer of the rank of Food Inspector is not included in this Clause. Therefore, as rightly pleaded by the petitioners, the very seizure by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and
consequently the initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act based on such seizure report is also without jurisdiction. As observed above, no counter affidavit is filed denying the plea of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to seize. Though ordinarily a person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 6-A of the Act is entitled to file an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act, considering the fact that the order passed by respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and consequently the same is a nullity, the petitioners are entitled to assail the said order by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the above analysis, the impugned order of respondent No.1 is quashed. Petitioner No.2 is entitled to take return of the bank guarantee furnished by him for release of the seized vehicle. Petitioner No.1 is also entitled to claim the value of the seized rice at the prevailing market rate from respondent No.1. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.4249 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23-6-2015 bnr